HICKS DECISION

[whufc]

I've not read all the comments, but does it matter who he was training to / or was fighting against?

If, say, he was training with a rebel group in the Ukraine to fight Russian troops, does that make him guilt of terrorism, or is it only because he was reportedly training with a group who inflicted pain and suffering upon Australians?

Exactly

[Booney]

I've not read all the comments, but does it matter who he was training to / or was fighting against?

If, say, he was training with a rebel group in the Ukraine to fight Russian troops, does that make him guilt of terrorism, or is it only because he was reportedly training with a group who inflicted pain and suffering upon Australians?

Exactly

So it's only terrorism if it's action against Australia?

[Jimmy_041]

He can **** off and fight for whoever he wants; just don't expect any sympathy from me when his life goes all $hitty because of it.
"I was on holiday" Hope you enjoyed it and saw plenty of interesting things
I still say he's lucky he wasn't skun alive when caught. Would he want us to pay him if that had happened?

[Booney]

He can **** off and fight for whoever he wants; just don't expect any sympathy from me when his life goes all $hitty because of it.
"I was on holiday" Hope you enjoyed it and saw plenty of interesting things
I still say he's lucky he wasn't skun alive when caught. Would he want us to pay him if that had happened?

Skinned alive, from the grave. Very rare law suits they are indeed.

[Jimmy_041]

He can **** off and fight for whoever he wants; just don't expect any sympathy from me when his life goes all $hitty because of it.
"I was on holiday" Hope you enjoyed it and saw plenty of interesting things
I still say he's lucky he wasn't skun alive when caught. Would he want us to pay him if that had happened?

Skinned alive, from the grave. Very rare law suits they are indeed.

Take this

[whufc]

I've not read all the comments, but does it matter who he was training to / or was fighting against?

If, say, he was training with a rebel group in the Ukraine to fight Russian troops, does that make him guilt of terrorism, or is it only because he was reportedly training with a group who inflicted pain and suffering upon Australians?

Exactly

So it's only terrorism if it's action against Australia?

I'm agreeing with u mate

[kickinit]

Hicks so called "brothers" were ready to go to war with the western world and with out doubt he would of shot at Australian soldiers if he had the chance. It would be interesting what everyones thoughts would be if he did shoot at them.

A speculative argument that has no factual grounding.

Its actually called the truth and to this day he still hasn't denied it. The reason why he hasn't denied it is because he knows the US has the evidence. If the US had no proof of it then he wouldn't of been fighting his charge on a legality basis.

The truth is that he never shot at Western forces. You're using speculation based on your opinion that he may have if given the chance. Fact is, he didn't.

Seriously Q you don't think he would of if he had a chance. He admitted about his hate towards the western world, the fact his "brothers" were prepared to go to war with the western world. When he's openly admitted those 2 things you don't think he would of taken a shot.

[kickinit]

I've not read all the comments, but does it matter who he was training to / or was fighting against?

If, say, he was training with a rebel group in the Ukraine to fight Russian troops, does that make him guilt of terrorism, or is it only because he was reportedly training with a group who inflicted pain and suffering upon Australians?

doesn't matter who he is fighting, if he is fighting with a group that has any link to terrorism then yes he is a terrorist. David Hicks has admitted to training with a terrorist group so yes he is a terrorist.

[kickinit]

my thoughts are if you want to train with a terrorist group then you don't even deserve a trial. These groups kill innocent people just because they are brainwashed by some idiot that thinks he is the next hitler. Why would we even bother with a person that has the thought of killing innocent australians just because of something that is made up.

George Bush frequently reference religion in his rhetoric before the Iraq invasion that killed many innocent people. Again, there is no moral superiority in this argument.

You seriously going to compare bush reference to religion to a terrorist reference to religion. Clutching at straws now Q.

You're clutching at straws claiming the moral high ground.

You want to believe it's different, but it's not.

I'm not the one that is trying to defend his actions even though to this day he has never denied the claims about training with a terrorist group.

[JK]

I've not read all the comments, but does it matter who he was training to / or was fighting against?

If, say, he was training with a rebel group in the Ukraine to fight Russian troops, does that make him guilt of terrorism, or is it only because he was reportedly training with a group who inflicted pain and suffering upon Australians?

Exactly

So it's only terrorism if it's action against Australia?

More treason than terrorism as the issue in that respect I would think (not that I have any interest in being involved in this particular discussion)